On 1/13/2010 5:54 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote: > Anyone got any actual comparisons between unison and rsync specifically > related > to the performance of synchronization of large data sets over slow links? > > I have a huge tree to start replication of Friday and know that if I sync the > root > paths it will take ages and with the lack of any overall state of progress > this won't > be optimal as its likely to fail for whatever reason before it can finish. > Initially > I just thought I would break it down to several smaller jobs but that becomes > a burden > to maintain... > > We use bacula internally but sending the diffs would be cumbersome as the > individual > files would be rather large...
I didn't think unison was maintained any more - and I wouldn't expect anything to beat rsync with the -z option on a slow link. I'd just use the -P option and restart it when/if it fails. It wouldn't hurt to do subsets first since they will be quickly skipped when you repeat from the root. If you have a huge number of files it might be worth finding a way to update rsync to a 3.x version which will not need to xfer the entire directory listing before starting. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos